mollymeek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mollymeek) wrote,@ 2006-08-24 01:19:00 |
|
The Strategic Uses of "The Population Problem"
For many years already, Singapore is facing the problem of an aging population. This problem is not new at all. But why the recent fuss/farce (sorry, Molly's English isn't very standard) about "the population problem?"
Not long ago, it used to be cast as the problem of an aging population. Now, it is just the population problem. Why?
When politicians talked about the problem of an aging population, the problem is progressive and the problem isn't going to manifest itself greatly in the next 1, 2 or 3 years. When politicians talk about The Population Problem now, it is sounds really immediate. And, indeed, one can conceive of it as an immediate problem. As many people are deciding not to have babies deciding not to have many babies now (I prefer to phrase it this way than to say that people are "not having enough babies"), there will be the problem of an aging population in future.
But is there really no other reason behind the particular enunciation of "The Population Problem" (as exemplified in PM Lee's rally)? Molly is no mind-reader but she posits that the particular expression of the problem that we is a political strategy. Molly previously wrote about the rhetoric of blamelessness and perhaps you detect such a rhetoric in the articulation of The Population Problem.
Several things nicely glossed over, including:
1. The real, immediate problem of the people's unhappiness about the government's foreign talent policy. Now, these foreign talents are known as migrants (or migrants to-be), whether or not there are really that many foreigners migrating to Singapore. In fact, one crucial thing to note is that the foreign talent policy is going to be even more intense than ever now.
2. The brain drain problem. More and more people are leaving for the desert for a pasture; and even more without the resources to do so are looking hungrily to their more privileged counterparts.
The rhetoric of blamelessness is once again at work:
Look, the problem is a population problem and that's because you selfish peasants are not having enough babies.
Notice how the most recent articulation of The Population Problem (quite a few problems conflated, actually) doesn't hold the government responsible for brain drain. It's really globalization and the challenges posed by the digital age that are at fault. It's not the government's policies, not the political climate the PAP has create, not the lack of space for the freedom of expression, not NS, not defamation suits, not sedition charges, not the ISD, not the massive injustices that pull hearts down the Singapore River that have caused people to leave or want to leave. Look, the government is even setting up an Overseas Singaporean Unit to tackle the problem created by globalization and the digital age.
No, it's not a problem created by the globalization and digital age. If anything, they are just helping Singaporeans solve their problems.
Notice how the government's foreign talent policy has become irrefutable. People used to resent the term "foreign talent" because it puts foreigners on the pedestal, but now we can only recuperate it to show the sort of policy that is really taking place. In fact, it's really your fault. You are getting foreign talents because you are not having babies.
Now, does the foreign talent policy really solve the challenges of an aging population?
Such a figure can frighten you. And no one will deny that there is cause for concern. The theory is that, as there are more and more old people, an increasingly small population will be supporting the whole population/economy. One assumption here, I think (and correct Molly if she's wrong), is that old people do not work or contribute to the economy.
To rephrase things a bit, the abstract idea seems to be that younger people will be working to support older people who have retired (?) and are no longer working. Is this really going to happen? In a society with a strong social support system, a welfare system in which the the old, retired and penniless get financial support from the state, this sounds bad. Taxes, taxes, taxes for the working. But in Singapore? We will perhaps have old people with fewer children to support them. Or fewer children to sue for maintenance. But what really is the problem?
Would getting more foreign talents solve the problem?
The Singaporeans already here will get old, will lose their jobs even before they are old, will not have enough money for retirement (if they survive till then). And these foreign talents are not the children of Singaporeans. Certainly, 90 year-old old Molly can't be suing an angmoh bloke for maintenance (unless she divorces him, but that's not possible unless she marries him first). And when she looks to the good old gahmen, they will tell her that welfarism is bad.
So what do the solutions solve? With more foreign talents, we will continue to have a vibrant, productive economy yielding beautiful statistics every three months and we will continue to have suffering peasants suffering even more than ever, aged folks in wheelchairs trying to squeeze into wheelchair-friendly buses and trains with recording-breaking crowds, crying, crying, crying for help... More people will leave, even more want to leave. The politics remain unchanged. Foreign talents (especially if they are ever granted dual citizenships) can always go back to their motherland whereas poor old Molly will be blogging her blood dry fearing that she will be charged for sedition at the age of 115.
The three-pronged approach to tackle The Population Problem that is really a bad way of packaging a whole myriad of problems:
1. Encourage marriage and parenthood.
Come on, people are not stupid. DPM Wong, with Molly's better-than-nothing salary, do you think Molly can afford to feed your targeted 2.1 kids (2 mouths and a disintegrated bodily part)?
2. Engage and bond with overseas Singaporeans through the Overseas Singaporean Unit.
Without addressing the very push factors? This could topple the SDU as the worst unit set up by bureaucrats who don't know better or who know better but do not want to do any better for fear of losing their power.
3. Attracting foreigners to become PRs or Singapore citizens.
Well, that helps those who are already Singaporeans a lot?
And let's suppose that we are only attracting really talented and successful foreigners to be PRs and citizens. These are going to be economically advanced people. Even if they stay as PRs or citizens, they could very well send their children back to the old motherland for education (and avoid conscription). Even if their children stay, they are going to be more mobile than Molly (born to a working class family) is. Piss them off and off they go.
So, what are the plans to stop pissing people off?
More Crazy Horse acts? More casinos? More lip service to "opening up?"
An even more stressful 'world class' education system?
Of course, that was supposing that we are attracting really talented and successful foreigners. If we aren't ... well, welcome to the brave new world of more sobbing peasants. PM Lee said that our forefathers were immigrants too, didn't he? And look what we have become. Just look.
Disclaimer. Perhaps Molly's dystopian projections are no more than a fictional account resulting from her over-active imagination and under-nourished rationality. But, ultimately, isn't it interesting to ask: what are the real problems with the population problem?
Meanwhile, if Molly ever gets to be a quitter and some Overseas Singaporean Unit keeps trying to bond with her, she might consider suing for harassment. Because something has disappointed her for too many times. Far too deeply.
For many years already, Singapore is facing the problem of an aging population. This problem is not new at all. But why the recent fuss/farce (sorry, Molly's English isn't very standard) about "the population problem?"
Not long ago, it used to be cast as the problem of an aging population. Now, it is just the population problem. Why?
When politicians talked about the problem of an aging population, the problem is progressive and the problem isn't going to manifest itself greatly in the next 1, 2 or 3 years. When politicians talk about The Population Problem now, it is sounds really immediate. And, indeed, one can conceive of it as an immediate problem. As many people are deciding not to have babies deciding not to have many babies now (I prefer to phrase it this way than to say that people are "not having enough babies"), there will be the problem of an aging population in future.
But is there really no other reason behind the particular enunciation of "The Population Problem" (as exemplified in PM Lee's rally)? Molly is no mind-reader but she posits that the particular expression of the problem that we is a political strategy. Molly previously wrote about the rhetoric of blamelessness and perhaps you detect such a rhetoric in the articulation of The Population Problem.
Several things nicely glossed over, including:
1. The real, immediate problem of the people's unhappiness about the government's foreign talent policy. Now, these foreign talents are known as migrants (or migrants to-be), whether or not there are really that many foreigners migrating to Singapore. In fact, one crucial thing to note is that the foreign talent policy is going to be even more intense than ever now.
2. The brain drain problem. More and more people are leaving for the desert for a pasture; and even more without the resources to do so are looking hungrily to their more privileged counterparts.
The rhetoric of blamelessness is once again at work:
Look, the problem is a population problem and that's because you selfish peasants are not having enough babies.
Notice how the most recent articulation of The Population Problem (quite a few problems conflated, actually) doesn't hold the government responsible for brain drain. It's really globalization and the challenges posed by the digital age that are at fault. It's not the government's policies, not the political climate the PAP has create, not the lack of space for the freedom of expression, not NS, not defamation suits, not sedition charges, not the ISD, not the massive injustices that pull hearts down the Singapore River that have caused people to leave or want to leave. Look, the government is even setting up an Overseas Singaporean Unit to tackle the problem created by globalization and the digital age.
No, it's not a problem created by the globalization and digital age. If anything, they are just helping Singaporeans solve their problems.
Notice how the government's foreign talent policy has become irrefutable. People used to resent the term "foreign talent" because it puts foreigners on the pedestal, but now we can only recuperate it to show the sort of policy that is really taking place. In fact, it's really your fault. You are getting foreign talents because you are not having babies.
Now, does the foreign talent policy really solve the challenges of an aging population?
"Our own population is ageing - current projections show that one-in-five Singaporeans will be over the age of 65 by 2030." (DPM Wong Kan Seng in CNA Interview)
Such a figure can frighten you. And no one will deny that there is cause for concern. The theory is that, as there are more and more old people, an increasingly small population will be supporting the whole population/economy. One assumption here, I think (and correct Molly if she's wrong), is that old people do not work or contribute to the economy.
To rephrase things a bit, the abstract idea seems to be that younger people will be working to support older people who have retired (?) and are no longer working. Is this really going to happen? In a society with a strong social support system, a welfare system in which the the old, retired and penniless get financial support from the state, this sounds bad. Taxes, taxes, taxes for the working. But in Singapore? We will perhaps have old people with fewer children to support them. Or fewer children to sue for maintenance. But what really is the problem?
Would getting more foreign talents solve the problem?
The Singaporeans already here will get old, will lose their jobs even before they are old, will not have enough money for retirement (if they survive till then). And these foreign talents are not the children of Singaporeans. Certainly, 90 year-old old Molly can't be suing an angmoh bloke for maintenance (unless she divorces him, but that's not possible unless she marries him first). And when she looks to the good old gahmen, they will tell her that welfarism is bad.
So what do the solutions solve? With more foreign talents, we will continue to have a vibrant, productive economy yielding beautiful statistics every three months and we will continue to have suffering peasants suffering even more than ever, aged folks in wheelchairs trying to squeeze into wheelchair-friendly buses and trains with recording-breaking crowds, crying, crying, crying for help... More people will leave, even more want to leave. The politics remain unchanged. Foreign talents (especially if they are ever granted dual citizenships) can always go back to their motherland whereas poor old Molly will be blogging her blood dry fearing that she will be charged for sedition at the age of 115.
The three-pronged approach to tackle The Population Problem that is really a bad way of packaging a whole myriad of problems:
1. Encourage marriage and parenthood.
Come on, people are not stupid. DPM Wong, with Molly's better-than-nothing salary, do you think Molly can afford to feed your targeted 2.1 kids (2 mouths and a disintegrated bodily part)?
2. Engage and bond with overseas Singaporeans through the Overseas Singaporean Unit.
Without addressing the very push factors? This could topple the SDU as the worst unit set up by bureaucrats who don't know better or who know better but do not want to do any better for fear of losing their power.
3. Attracting foreigners to become PRs or Singapore citizens.
Well, that helps those who are already Singaporeans a lot?
And let's suppose that we are only attracting really talented and successful foreigners to be PRs and citizens. These are going to be economically advanced people. Even if they stay as PRs or citizens, they could very well send their children back to the old motherland for education (and avoid conscription). Even if their children stay, they are going to be more mobile than Molly (born to a working class family) is. Piss them off and off they go.
So, what are the plans to stop pissing people off?
More Crazy Horse acts? More casinos? More lip service to "opening up?"
An even more stressful 'world class' education system?
Of course, that was supposing that we are attracting really talented and successful foreigners. If we aren't ... well, welcome to the brave new world of more sobbing peasants. PM Lee said that our forefathers were immigrants too, didn't he? And look what we have become. Just look.
Disclaimer. Perhaps Molly's dystopian projections are no more than a fictional account resulting from her over-active imagination and under-nourished rationality. But, ultimately, isn't it interesting to ask: what are the real problems with the population problem?
Meanwhile, if Molly ever gets to be a quitter and some Overseas Singaporean Unit keeps trying to bond with her, she might consider suing for harassment. Because something has disappointed her for too many times. Far too deeply.
